HL Deb 13 April 1825 vol 12 cc1326-35

Lord Rolle presented a Petition from the inhabitants of great Torrington, Devon, against the proposed law for the relief of the Catholics.

The Bishop of Exeter (Dr. Carey)

said, he had several petitions to present on this subject, which were not from the clergy, but were signed by dissenters of every denomination. The first was from the inhabitants of the parish of Kenton, in the county of Devon; the second from the churchwardens of St. Lawrence, Exeter; and the third from the inhabitants of North Bishop; all praying, that no further concessions might be granted to the Catholics. The fourth petition he had to present was the only one concerning which he expected to hear a dissentient voice, as it was from that proscribed body, the, clergy. In common, however, with all his majesty's subjects they had a right to petition. They came before their lordships not to offer advice; and it was one of the most essential privileges of the people of this country, that the doors of parliament were open to their petitions. The petition he had to present was from the archdeacon and clergy of Totness, Devon. The petition had been agreed to by all the clergy of the archdeaconry, regularly assembled, with only one dissen- tient voice. He particularly mentioned this, because he understood the noble baron opposite had a counter-petition from that dissentient to present to their lordships.

The humble Petition of the clergy of the archdeaconry of Totness:

"That your petitioners are incumbents and curates in an extensive district of the diocese of Exeter. That they conceive it is their clear and indefeasible right, in common with the rest of his majesty's subjects, humbly to submit their sentiments to your right hon. House, whenever their judgment or their conscience shall direct them so to do:—That they are sincerely desirous to live in peace and Christian charity with religious sects of every denomination; to allow them the most absolute toleration in the profession of their faith and in the exercise of their religious worship; together with every political privilege that is consistent with the security of the establishment:—That they do not presume to interfere with, advise, or remonstrate, upon the resolves of the legislature; and, on questions of a purely civil nature, they would feel great reluctance to intrude on the attention of your right honourable House; but viewing with real alarm the unlimited claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, they cannot refrain from stating to your right honourable House their firm belief, that that body cannot be intrusted with framing and administering the laws of this country, without imminent danger to its church; and therefore your petitioners humbly pray, that no further concessions be granted to their demands, that may not be accompanied by such well-considered securities, as will protect equally inviolable the established religion and rights of the clergy in all parts of the united kingdom."

Lord King

said, he would take that opportunity of doing justice to the archdeacon of Totness, one of the persons whose signature was to the petition their lordships had just heard read. He (lord King) had stated to their lordships, that several of the clergy of the diocese of Exeter held civil situations, and that this practice was a bad one. He was happy to have this opinion confirmed by the practice of the archdeacon, who was an alderman of Totness, but he had resigned his gown, and he was happy to take that opportunity of expressing his satisfaction at what the archdeacon had done.

The Bishop of Exeter

said, he had also heard that the archdeacon had resigned his gown as an alderman. While he acknowledged the propriety of this proceeding, he must also observe that he believed no man could have acted more honourably and uprightly in his office, than that reverend person had done; and that he was thoroughly convinced he never administered it with a view to temporal advantages, or lent himself to any political views.

Lord Rolle

said, he could assert, that a more worthy man than the individual whose office had been made the subject of animadversion, never lived. It would be well if the noble lord on the other side would point out many instances of such commendable conduct.

Lord King

explained, that he had no other object in view in mentioning the subject, but to do justice to the archdeacon, and to praise him for what he had done.

The Bishop of Exeter

signified, that he understood the noble lord's observations to be of the nature he had described them.

Lord Holland

said, that the petition which the right reverend lord, or his right reverend friend, if he would allow him to pall him so, had just presented, and which had just been read, was a petition from the clergy of a district in his diocese, praying that their lordships would continue the restrictive laws against their Roman Catholic fellow subjects; and as it had been said, and very properly, the clergy had as good a right to petition as any of his majesty's subjects, he could not anticipate any objection to a petition from a clergyman, the prayer of which was in opposition to that which had just been presented. The learned and reverend prelate had, in presenting the petition, described the petitioners as the proscribed clergy of the church of England; he knew not in what sense the right hon. prelate had understood the word, nor in what sense the clergy understood it; but the petition he had the honour to present, did really come from a clergyman, who might justly be called proscribed. And this he should not say, if he had not proof of the circumstances of the case of the petitioner, who had considered this question as he had a right to do, to be, not one of a religious, but of a civil nature. It was the petition of the Rev. John Pike Jones, curate of North Bovey, in Devonshire; and he came before this House not as a curate, but a subject and a citizen. His petition was more deserving the attention of their lordships, as, in consequence of having formerly shown his zeal on the same question, he had found himself precluded from obtaining promotion in his profession; he had appeared before their lordships as a petitioner on that occasion, and then complained of being a proscribed man, and appealed to their lordships for justice against persecution, for having done, not in his character of a curate, but in his character of a freeholder, what his conscience dictated, in favour of the claims of his Catholic countrymen; for having, at a public meeting, urged arguments in favour of those claims; arguments which he (lord Holland) thought unanswerable; or, perhaps, for some false report of what he said there, was this humble curate excluded from all preferment by the bishop of his diocese. He must say, it was not by the present bishop; he thought no man at present on the bench more incapable than the right rev. prelate who had presented the petition from Totness, of using his power in any such arbitrary and unjust way; but, under the right reverend prelate's predecessor, the curate's preferment was checked, and when presented to two livings in another diocese, he was not able to receive them, because the bishop refused to grant him the necessary testimonials. That right rev. prelate now holds a better situation, and has received a higher preferment, but the humble curate of North Bovey remains where he was. In common with the rest of the clergy of the archdeaconry, he had attended the meeting, though he did not approve of it, and had protested against its conclusions. He had instructed him (lord Holland) to say, that never was a meeting more candidly and more fairly conducted. All the arguments urged by this able and honourable man were listened to, but they were over-ruled by the majority; and, as he had before been persecuted for his opinions, he thought it right to show, that oppression had not made him change his opinion, and he resolved to present a counter petition. The petition which he had to present stated, that the petitioner observed with regret the situation of Catholics deprived in this country of a full enjoyment of religious liberty, Now, with regard to petitioning, though he held the right in the highest estimation, he did not think the practice of petitioning on all occasions, or mere questions of opinion, a very wholesome one. Nobody on his side of the House had, however, said that the clergy, either in bodies or individually, had not a right to petition; but he would not subscribe to the opinion of a noble and learned lord, that it was not proper to notice the language in which such petitions might be framed. On the contrary, he thought that precisely because the clergy had a right to petition, their lordships were called upon to examine the opinions expressed in their petitions, and that they were the more called upon to scrutinize the language, because the petitions came from an educated class of persons. Now, many of these petitions had been remarkable, not only for intemperance of language, but for containing all sorts of fallacies, and were calculated to impress upon the public, notions respecting the proposed concessions to the Roman Catholics, which were quite the reverse of the fact. There ran through the whole of them a complete confusion of ideas on two words—liberty and power. Liberty was a word often understood in very different senses; sometimes it was used merely to signify freedom from formal restraint. Civil liberty was often regarded as the security for inheritance, and the right by which a man had the enjoyment of his property: by religious liberty was very generally understood, that state in which a man might be permitted to worship God according to his own conscience. These might be all very proper definitions, to a certain extent. He should not enter into any discussion of what might be properly called civil and religious liberty; but if what he had described was to be called liberty, he must say it was the same which was enjoyed under the most despotic government; and therefore it was not that kind of liberty which constituted a free state. It was the same liberty which the king of Prussia, or the emperor of Russia, or any other arbitrary sovereign, granted to their subjects. Attempts had been made to draw a distinction between political power and civil liberty; for his part, he saw none. If there were any difference, it must be that which constituted a free government The Catholics only asked for what was enjoyed by others; but all the petitions, with an artful perversion of terms, described civil liberty as political power. One petition stated the Catholics to have a vehement desire for power—he believed the word was despotic power; but, how- ever, the word was power. Now this which was called a vehement desire for power, was merely the desire of enjoying those privileges which were attached to the constitution. The Catholics merely prayed, that they might be admitted to a participation of the same power which every British subject enjoyed. This was the real object of their application; whereas by the phrases introduced into the petitions of the clergy, the people were liable to be imposed upon, and to be made to believe, that the Catholics were seeking some superiority over other sects. He hoped he should be excused for thus occupying the attention of their lordships, for it was impossible for him to have explained the view he took of the petitions which had been presented, without saying thus much. With regard to the petition he had to present, it stated, much more correctly than those numerous petitions to which he had alluded, that the question of granting emancipation to the Catholics was one altogether of a political nature. He hoped, however, that he had not dwelt unnecessarily on this subject; and with regard to the receiving of petitions, he thought that the doors of that and the other House ought to be thrown widely open for them, more especially as he recollected, that encroachments had been made upon that right, by the very persons who now most strenuously advocated the admission of all sorts of petitions. He must also observe, that he thought the opinions expressed in petitions always well worthy of their lordships' consideration. With regard to the petitions to which he had more particularly alluded, had they been from humble individuals, he should never have thought of taking any particular notice of their language; but as they came from persons connected with a body which had great weight and influence in the country, and from an educated class of men, they ought, in his opinion, to be canvassed. The noble lord then moved that the petition be read, and laid on the table. It stated, "That, your petitioner observes with deep regret the present situation of the Roman Catholics of these realms, who are deprived in a great degree of the inestimable blessings of civil and religious liberty, and though born to the inheritance, yet are dispossessed of the benefits and privileges of the British constitution:—That, however necessary the penal statutes now in force might have been at a former period, to secure the establishment of our Protestant church, yet, as every appearance of danger has subsided, it is equally impolitic and unjust to subject any British subject to civil disabilities on account of his religious faith; and as the Roman Catholics are willing to take an oath of allegiance, by which all temporal adherence to any foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate is altogether disavowed, nothing further can be expected than the solemn observance of this oath, which has never in any instance been violated:—That, the belief of the Roman Catholics with respect to the spiritual power of the Pope relates merely to subjects of a religious and ecclesiastical nature, which has for a long series of years been settled in every Catholic country in Europe, without any evil consequences having ensued; and as that power is still acknowledged by the Roman Catholics of these realms, it would not endanger the safety of this country to dispense with the oath of supremacy, and to permit the British Catholics to enter immediately into such open recognition of the Pope's authority, as would finally set at rest all differences which may have arisen on that point, and no apprehension could then be entertained, that any British subject would be influenced by a double or doubtful allegiance:—That the leading principle of the British constitution is, that taxation, elegibility to office, and representation are inseparable, yet it is an acknowledged fact, that one third of the population of these realms, being Roman Catholics, are excluded from both Houses of parliament; and moreover, that no English Roman Catholic can ever give his vote to a representative; the consequence is, a complete violation of an established principle of the constitution; and the descendants of those ancestors who established our code of law, as well as the whole system of our civil policy are excluded from any participation in our representation, without being relieved from the burthen of taxation:—That, the remission of the penal code which has already been effected, having been productive of the greatest benefit, no danger having ensued to the English church in consequence thereof, nor has any attempt been made by the Roman Catholic body to invade any privilege which our Protestant church now possesses, the test of experience has therefore been afforded; and the natural conclusion is, that a complete removal of existing disabilities would in no degree endanger the well-being of our established church, nor tend to destroy any of the modes by which it is now supported:—That the opinions erroneously attributed to Roman Catholics of holding no faith with heretics—of the priests having a power of absolving from oaths, and that the Pope can depose temporal Princes, have long been rejected by the Catholic body, and disclaimed on oaths by the Roman Catholics of England and Ireland, in a manner which can lead no educated or honest man to doubt of their sincerity. Whatever danger might have been apprehended from the supposed belief of the Roman Catholics in these doctrines, can exist no longer; and the government of this country has, moreover, expressed its conviction on this subject by admitting Roman Catholics to certain subordinate offices, on the guarantee of their oaths. That, as in various Catholic countries, more particularly in France, Protestants are admitted to the full enjoyment of civil and religious liberty; and, as his present most gracious majesty has granted to his Hanoverian subjects an equal particiption of civil and religious rights, without any exclusion in reference to points of faith; I humbly pray for a similar extension to the whole of the inhabitants of these realms, by the speedy removal of every penal statute, which may now affect any portion of the community. That, in placing my utmost reliance in the wisdom of your right hon. House, I feel confident that whatever measures of relief may be adopted for the Roman Catholics, every attention will be paid to the interests of our established church."—"(Signed), John Pike Jones."

The Bishop of Exeter

said, he had used the word "proscribed" as applied to the clergy, not because their petitions were actually rejected, but because attempts were made, by sneers and sarcasms, to prevent them from petitioning. The clergy were, however, determined to petition; he should have several other petitions to lay on their lordships' table; and the laity, roused by its having been said they were indifferent to the subject, were also coming forward with numerous petitions.

Lord King

said, the clergy complained of being proscribed by sneers and sarcasms; this was a new proscription, and he thought it would be more correct to say they were proscribing than proscribed.

The Bishop of Landaff

presented a petition from the archdeacon and clergy of the diocese of Oxford, against the Ca- tholic claims. In presenting the petition, he would take occasion to say, that the clergy did not consider this, as the noble baron opposite considered it—a question merely of a civil and political nature, but as a question of a religious nature, in which they were deeply interested. They looked on it as an attack on the church of England, which was allowed by all statesmen to be an integral part of our constitution, and as the best bulwark of the Protestant faith.

The Bishop of Chester

presented a petition from the clergy resident in Manchester, to the same effect. There were 42 clergymen resident there, and the petition was signed by 41; and it was only by an accidental circumstance, that the signature of the other clergyman was wanted. He was happy to observe that the petitions of the clergy had at length found their level; and that noble lords thought the intellect, acquirements, and education of the petitioners entitled their petition to attention. The question was one in which the clergy had a great personal interest. The confusion which the noble baron had remarked as to liberty and power, prevailed also in the two terms, punishment and restraint; and the noble baron, he thought, had laid a proper foundation for the restraint now imposed on the Catholics, when he stated that there might be circumstances which would justify curtailing civil liberty. With regard to several religious questions, laws were still found in our Statute book, imposing restraints on the people. When persons were found professing principles which went to the root of all civil liberty, could it be advisable to give them political power? The great distinction of the case was overlooked. The real question was, whether the Roman Catholics were, or were not to be admitted to rule over the Protestants?

Lord Holland

explained. He did not contend that the clergy had no right to petition, but he thought it might be a question as to the prudence of their doing so; but of this they must judge for themselves. What the Catholics wanted was the right of ruling themselves; not of ruling over others. It was a fundamental principle in all free countries, that every man ought to have a share in making the laws by which he was to be governed. The Catholics enjoyed civil liberty, but were deprived of political liberty, and were not members of a free government.

The Bishop of Chester

presented a petition from the magistrates, clergy, and inhabitants of Bolton-le-Moors, against the Catholic claims. The petition was signed by 8,000 persons; but there were some stigmas thrown out on the Catholics, of which he did not approve.

Lord King

regretted very much to see so much advice sent to their lordships—he would say so much bad advice; for it was said, by lord Clarendon, that the clergy, however learned, were very ignorant of the affairs of the world. What would the king of Prussia say to his clergy, if they were to pour in such quantities of advice on him. If his Lutheran clergy, were to tell him, the Catholics are dangerous, they cannot be trusted, you must not employ them, do not admit them into your government, they will become your masters? Why, he would tell them to hold their peace, and not stir up hostility and strife in his dominions. He must say, that it was extraordinary to see the members of a religion, which professed to be the religion of charity, peace, and good will amongst men, promoting dissention and discord. Their lordships would do well not to take such advice, and to act as he had supposed his Prussian Majesty would act, and reject all bad advice from the clergy.

The Bishop of Gloucester

said, that the clergy came not before their lordships as advisers, but as petitioners. They expressed their opinions in plain manly language; but they left it entirely to the wisdom of their lordships to determine what measure should be adopted.

Ordered to lie on the table.